mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Trade and World Order
Ding, Dong, Doha Is Dead
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Anthony

    “The reality is that emerging markets that benefited after the 2008 crisis from China’s economic growth, rising commodity prices, and cheap foreign capital must now adjust to reversals in all these factors. The necessary transitions for these markets will be complex, risky, and not entirely within their control.”

    One must recognize the probability of Nairobi concluding Doha negotiations being also a knock-on effect of latest Fed December decision. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fed-rate-risk-emerging-economies-by-michael-spence-2015-12

  • Pete

    Mead, why are the backward countries called ‘developing’ and the advanced countries called ‘developed?’

    Wouldn’t ‘advanced’ and ‘backward’ be better descriptions of the situation?

    I’m just asking

    • dawnsblood

      Nope. Labeling is all about describing without allowing those you are labeling feel badly about it. When I was young it was third world and first world countries. After a while, the third world countries felt that label had accumulated a lot negative energy. They then came up with developed vs developing because they thought it sounded less negative to be developing. Next time they change the terminology, it will be to something they feel is less stigmatizing. There is no way it will be backward because that would sound even worse.

      • Jim__L

        Once upon a time in the mid-20th century, an author was trying to come up with the dullest, most anonymous, most invisible name anyone could possibly imagine. You can just picture him paging through the Financial Times for the most boring word he could find, and couple it with the most common first name he knew. What name was the result of this exercise?

        Bond. James Bond.

        Interestingly — John Adams didn’t think the term “president” was exalted enough for the leader of a country. Think about how much weight “President of the United States” has now. It really didn’t, to begin with. And think about the name “Beatles” for a rock band. It’s a painfully lame pun. And yet…

        Over time, signifiers actually signify what they signify. Rotate out the words for negative concepts all you want, they end up in the toilet with the rest. Or even put a fair-to-middling word on a positive thing, and watch the word rehabilitate. It’s astonishing, really.

      • Pete

        Ah, I see. It’s all about Third World sensitivities. Okay.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    We are 7 years into “Great Depression 2.0”, and trade restrictions is what happens in a deflationary economy. It’s counter productive, but protectionism like procrastination has the benefit of instant gratification.

    “And given that we are still in a period of slack global demand in which most of the world’s countries are engaged in promoting exports ‘by keeping their currencies low'”

    They do this by using export earned foreign currencies to purchase the Treasuries of those currency’s respective countries. The US should do the same thing, only in reverse, and payoff all foreign held US Treasuries (~$6+ Trillion). This money should then be used together with the (~$2+ Trillion) already held by the Fed ($6+ Trillion + $2+ Trillion = ~$9 Trillion) , to create individual inheritable Social Security Accounts for every American man, woman, and child of about $30,000. I have no doubt the screams from the Foreign Currency Cheaters would be music to the American working class that have been taking it on the chin for decades. But what are they going to do? America would be paying them off, they would have only themselves to blame if the value of those dollars is much less than it was when they used their nefarious currency manipulation. Muwahahaha!!!
    This would:
    1. devalue the Dollar for the first time in over 40 years,
    2. reverse the trade deficit to a trade surplus,
    3. provide a price advantage to US exporters also for the first time in over 40 years,
    4. cause a huge influx of foreign investment, providing millions of new jobs,
    5. American Companies would repatriate the Billions if not Trillions in profits they haven’t brought back before now because of America’s high corporate taxes.
    6. fix the Social Security Ponzi scheme,
    7. create a $9 Trillion injection of capital into the American economy irrespective of the foreign investment, trade surplus, millions of new jobs, and repatriated corporate profits.
    This action would:
    1. increase every American’s net worth in a way the foolish couldn’t spoil,
    2. create inflation with which to fight the deflation,
    3. increase the money supply,
    4. devalue debts back to comfortable and sustainable levels,
    5. massively cut the rate of bankruptcies and foreclosures,
    6. reignite the economy with a sustained growth rate unseen in this country since the rise of Big Government burdened it so.
    And would likely get America and the World out of “Great Depression 2.0”, much as WWII dug us out of “Great Depression 1.0” with all the forgiven debts, millions who literally “Bought the Farm” (500k in America alone), put people back to work (12 million in service, millions more in war manufacturing, as well as the government payoff of war debt created inflation, all reduced the high private debt levels which had trapped the economy in deflation.
    I don’t think we should have a World War to get out of “Great Depression 2.0” like we did “Great Depression 1.0”, do you?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service